Give a break for a DUI? What do you think?

[Charlie Mike]

I got my only DUI almost 2 years ago. My brother got his first approx a year after mine. He continued driving on a suspended and killed a geezer 3 months after his first DUI while (you guessed it) drunk and on oxycontin. You did the right thing.

 

[Siggyhk]

It's wrong to think that a weekend (or week) in jail, probation, and a license suspension will stop a person from driving drunk.
Should a drunk driver get arrested..? Sure, but I wouldn't expect anything possitive to come from that.

 

[Clang!]

....because he was driving drunk and speeding 52 in a 25 zome. He was not borderline drunk either
...
So what do you guys think?

Double the speed limit and solidly drunk to boot, and there is doubt as to if you did the right thing?

I can see giving a warning to somebody borderline on BAC and speed depending on circumstances, but not to that egregious a violation.

To quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (sentenced to 8 years for derogatory comments about Stalin) concening the objectivity of law:

I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."​

 

[Thomason]

Nobody should get a break if caught driving drunk. All cases should get the maximum penalty allowed.

WARNING - Graphic - Here is a Texas drunk driving PSA.

[youtube]Zd-QG-Yx_Ho[/youtube]

 

[idaho]

I don't know anything about accident statistics in Poland, but in the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that alcohol is a factor in 39% of all traffic fatalities in the US. That's a huge percentage that I highly doubt can be matched by any other single factor that may affect safe driving.

That is really a huge percentage. Your roads are a lot safer than in Poland, and in such condition strict law considering DUI can bring safety to even higher level.

 

[eyeeatingfish]

It's wrong to think that a weekend (or week) in jail, probation, and a license suspension will stop a person from driving drunk.
Should a drunk driver get arrested..? Sure, but I wouldn't expect anything possitive to come from that.

If i recall the statistics correctly, most people who get arrested for DUI don't get arrested a second time. The people who do get arrested a second time though will most likely get arrested a third and fourth time.

 

[JGON]

It's wrong to think that a weekend (or week) in jail, probation, and a license suspension will stop a person from driving drunk.
Should a drunk driver get arrested..? Sure, but I wouldn't expect anything possitive to come from that.

Coming from someone who has been through this experience and came out the other side a much better person, I can tell you firsthand that this statement is absurd.

In my opinion, the penalties should be steeper. It WOULD deter more people. I've been there. It sucked. 90 days in jail. Not fun. But now, after that incredibly embarrassing, humbling experience, I have changed my ways for the positive.

While many people don't find a silver lining out of a situation like this, there are many that do.

 

[Davor]

Best to drink at home or take a cab. Be more careful what you post on public blogs, especially if you work in law enforcement. Any attorney with this blog can get a DUI or DWI client off.

"DUIs are pretty common and I try to get one arrest a week. It is good all around because I take a dangerous person off the road, the bosses are happy showing that we get stuff done, and the court overtime money helps give me spending money."

 

[tyr_shadowblade]

Nobody should get a break if caught driving drunk. All cases should get the maximum penalty allowed.

All cases should be judged on an individual basis, with mitigating circumstances taken under consideration.

Someone who is barely over the BAC limit and driving on a back road who was pulled over for a burned out taillight bulb should not get the same treatment as someone who is triple the BAC and driving the wrong way on the freeway.

 

[Thomason]

All cases should be judged on an individual basis, with mitigating circumstances taken under consideration.

Someone who is barely over the BAC limit and driving on a back road who was pulled over for a burned out taillight bulb should not get the same treatment as someone who is triple the BAC and driving the wrong way on the freeway.

OK, I'll buy that.

 

[Siggyhk]

Yeah, Jgron, it's not the first or last absurd thing I'll post on bladeforums.

Have you considered that maybe you wouldn't have changed your ways if you got the usual slap on the wrist instead of a 90 day sentence.

Either way, I'm happy for anyone who has experience a DUI and changed thier life for the better.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

All cases should be judged on an individual basis, with mitigating circumstances taken under consideration.

Someone who is barely over the BAC limit and driving on a back road who was pulled over for a burned out taillight bulb should not get the same treatment as someone who is triple the BAC and driving the wrong way on the freeway.

while no one can eliminate biases gained through personal experiences, this is how i attempt to approach policing in general.

 

[biggun3006]

No good dead goes unpunished!!! You did the right thing. I'm with a chapter of the NWTF that has a yearly Wheelin Sportsmen hunt. One of our hunters is a 13 year old boy who's family was hit by a drunk driver. His entire family was in the car and he was the only one hurt. He is permanently in a wheelchair. No one should have to lose what he has so that some idiot can drink and try to drive himself home.

 

[Kohai999]

while no one can eliminate biases gained through personal experiences, this is how i attempt to approach policing in general.

Mark,

This is how I try to judge interaction with a police officer in general.

I interact with high level law enforcement and government officials(Captains and above, City Council members and The Mayor(douchebag) on a monthly basis through a number of different conduits.

My personal feeling(reflected through my vote) is that the OP could have VERY easily arranged for option 2....send mr drunky home without his vehicle as NO ONE WAS HARMED by this incident...but no...he played hardass.

You have dined with me, Mark....I'm not a big dude....but IF I was a small town fry cook, and the OP chose to dine in my restaurant....at the very least...I'd be looking to box his ass at the soonest possible opportunity based upon this incident...for at least some degree of equalibrium.

Let's keep it in perspective people....you CAN be harmed by just about anyone's negligence at any time, sober or drunk....NO ONE WAS harmed in this case....

Dann....I take particular umbrage at your post...YOUR stupidity/lack of attention caused you to suffer a big hospital bill that you could not afford....SOCIETY(BFC members) covered your ass....Mr. "I would arrest my own mother."....everyone does stupid shit....it is just a matter of the cost...to yourself, and everyone else.

As someone who believes in Liberty...I say, if you hurt someone.....regardless, there should be a massive cost to pay.....barring that....it is and has been a slippery slope and we are giving up an awful lot due to very stupid people who do stupid things.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson

 

[tsacain]

Coming from someone who has been through this experience and came out the other side a much better person, I can tell you firsthand that this statement is absurd.

In my opinion, the penalties should be steeper. It WOULD deter more people. I've been there. It sucked. 90 days in jail. Not fun. But now, after that incredibly embarrassing, humbling experience, I have changed my ways for the positive.

While many people don't find a silver lining out of a situation like this, there are many that do.

I agree. I was there right out of highschool when I thought I was invincible. I thank god that I am the only one who got hurt(I got hurt after because I had to climb over the road divider got my knee caught and dislocated it. Then decided to set it back in place myself). Since I have never driven drunk, not even after a beer.

For most people just getting a DUI in general is extremely embarrassing and a scary experience. I remember I almost pissed my pants when I was standing in front of the judge and I was shaking. I still feel like a piece of sh*t when I mention it to girls I am starting to date or for jobs. I know people who have gotten DUI's but still drive drunk. These people also use other drugs (cocaine and pills) and will never learn.

 

[eyeeatingfish]

You have dined with me, Mark....I'm not a big dude....but IF I was a small town fry cook, and the OP chose to dine in my restaurant....at the very least...I'd be looking to box his ass at the soonest possible opportunity based upon this incident...for at least some degree of equalibrium.

So you would get revenge on someone who was only doing their job when you were doing something wrong?

That is like me walking into your restaurant and asking for free food and when you tell me that you cannot do that I pee on your floor.

 

[Melvin-Purvis]

To the OP - the discretion is yours, do the job as you see fit.

To everyone else - yes, in a perfect world, all DUI offenders would face the firing squad, but this isn't a perfect world...deal with it.

In the last three years while working as a rural NW Montana volunteer firefighter in an 83 squre mile district with a 70 mph two-lane hwy running 20 miles up the center I've responded to probably 30 of the 80+ crash calls received - of those calls, maybe three were DUI's, and of those, only one involved more than one vehicle.

Yet, in the same period, the remaining calls typically involved driver negligence with regards to speed, passing, cell phone usage, icy conditions, running into or turning in front other vehicles such as logging trucks, and animal strikes or medical conditions - and a lot of those calls, the majority in fact, involved other vehicles, sometimes resulting in fatalities.

In my opinion, based on what I've seen, if we, as a state, enforced the law equally for all 'impaired drivers', we too would have a cottage industry lining the pockets of lawyers - without changing a damn thing.

I'm with not2sharp on this one...

 

[ricklee4570]

The law is the law. Nobody should be treated any different, whether it is a cops wife or another police officer.

Over the limit by a little, or a lot, arrest them.

Right is right, wrong is wrong.

Those advocating tolerance are probably drunk drivers themselves.

You do the crime, you do the time. Screw political correctness, thats why this country is in the shape its in.

 

[not2sharp]

The law is the law. Nobody should be treated any different, whether it is a cops wife or another police officer.

Over the limit by a little, or a lot, arrest them.

Right is right, wrong is wrong.

Those advocating tolerance are probably drunk drivers themselves.

You do the crime, you do the time. Screw political correctness, thats why this country is in the shape its in.

I seldom indulge, but I share Ben Franklin thoughts:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What has the MADD franchise pursuaded you so easily to give up, so that they may continue to line their pockets with $$$$$$$, at the cost of your freedoms. Don't be so gullible; there are reasonable risks that reasonable people can easily chose to avoid. For one thing, if you are really concerned, you may avoid driving around during the peak hours when bars close in your area. Don't allow someone's ghost story to stampede you into surrendering the freedom to chose. You don't need a sobriety check point if you don't drink, you already know you are sober. The stuff costs money, impedes traffic flow, and harrasses the innocent.

It may be law; a bad law, a law which should be changed.

n2s

 

[ricklee4570]

I seldom indulge, but I share Ben Franklin thoughts:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What has the MADD franchise pursuaded you so easily to give up, so that they may continue to line their pockets with $$$$$$$, at the cost of your freedoms. Don't be so gullible; there are reasonable risks that reasonable people can easily chose to avoid. For one thing, if you are really concerned, you may avoid driving around during the peak hours when bars close in your area. Don't allow someone's ghost story to stampede you into surrendering the freedom to chose. You don't need a sobriety check point if you don't drink, you already know you are sober. The stuff costs money, impedes traffic flow, and harrasses the innocent.

It may be law; a bad law, a law which should be changed.

n2s

Sounds like you are encouraging people to drink and drive? Surely I misunderstand you?

Nobody has absolute freedom. Our founding fathers knew that and made that clear.

Ben Franklin understood we are a Republic, a land of laws.